I’m just having a bit of fun. I don’t think he stole the election.
The page works fine for me. I’m just wondering why the first item on the cabinet agenda in the first cabinet meeting after Bush took office was Iraq. Maybe iot was oil, maybe it was something else. I’d be interested to hear your views.
The CIA does have a little bit of history overthrowing Middle Eastern governments to grab control of the oil though, doesn’t it? I know you think that history is irrelevant and just because America spent so much diplomatic/military/CIA etc. effort in the past maintaining control of oil in the region, that was in the past and has zero bearing on ourpresence in the region today. Yesterday it was irrelevant, today it’s a conspiracy theory.
As it happens, I have a graduate degree in the history of international relations, and I’m quite expert on US foreign policy. You’re barking up the wrong tree if your main lines of argument are that (a) I don’t know history and (b) the existence of a resource in a geographical area is prima facie evidence that the sole cause of current events in that area is due to the existence of such resources.
The fact is that the only evidence that the 2003 Iraq invasion was about oil rests on reading into various circumstantial facts through a preconceived notion based on one’s politics; not a dispassionate reading of the known facts.
There is no direct evidence that the war was based on “control” of oil. The fact that oil was discussed in relation to Iraq in the runup to the war means only that – hold on to your hat – oil is an important resource to Iraq, and to the world. You haven’t connected any dots to show that US control of oil was a goal for the invasion, and the record clearly reflects heaps and heaps of evidence that the war was about George Bush being a cowboy.
We’re probably mere posts away from the traditional “Sure the facts show I’m wrong and I haven’t accurately described what I’ve presented, but I’ll let those reading along judge who is right and bow out now.”
Because to say it’s all about the oil or not, either way is extremely oversimplifying the complex geo-political socio-economic morass of the human condition on this planet today.
That’s why.
Oil is but one of many factors in the Libyan portion of the equation, and rather small one at that. It may be comforting to lump stuff together and feel secure in your understanding of reality as 'twere. Just don’t kid yourself. 
So if you know history, would you agree that Britain and the US have quite a bit of history interfering in various diplomatic/intelligence/military ways in Middle Eastern countries to gain and further their control of Middle Eastern oil?
And if you do agree, when did we stop interfering in the Middle East for oil reasons? Are all the military bases that we have in the region now there for some other purpose than to protect the status quo over there? Are we propping up dictatorships like Saudi Arabia for different reasons now than when we originally started propping them up? And why is Britain/America’s documented history of interfering over there for oil reasons irrelevant to this discussion?
You can reply to my question anytime you want .
As far as I can tell, you are asking only liars to post…
What is your goal?
(Caveat: I have not read the thread.)
Just because there are trends to foreign relations doesn’t mean that everything done in foreign relations is a result of one trend.
For example, the US shares a very close relationship with Britain because of our common heritage and language. That doesn’t mean that every interaction we have is because of those cultural bonds. For example, our common ancestry does not explain why the US did not side with Britain in the Suez Crisis, to give a blatantly obvious example. That’s because everything that has happened in the history of a country’s foreign policy does not happen for a single reason.
There are countless examples of US policy positions that have been taken IN SPITE of our interest in oil. For example, our current policies toward Iran are not at all explained by an interest in controlling Iran’s oil. For example, sanctions on Iran do not promote our ability to control their oil. Instead, our current policy toward that country is far better explained by US opposition to Iran’s support for terrorism against Israel, our opposition to them having nuclear weapons, and a number of other reasons.
That doesn’t mean that past policies toward Iran were agnostic to oil production. It also doesn’t mean that events like the 1953 coup were entirely about oil: there are many reputable historians who argue that US support for the coup was first and foremost driven by anti-communism and the Truman Doctrine, and that oil was either a secondary or even a lesser issue.
So by asking when our foreign policy stopped being about oil, you are propagating the exact same sort of specious reasoning as someone who may ask when you stopped beating your wife.
Hi, Maybe you all havent read the prophecys from Gods word- they are this for the last days- in the book of Daniel-Revelation-- The two horned beast ( eagle-lion ) go into the middle eastern region after the hidden gold ( oil ) Then the prophecy of Egypt-Libya- then the fall of Babylon the great ( false religions ) the merchants stand at a distance and mourn this because their shelves are full ( no more religious holidays ) like a swift pitch into the sea this occurs- all done in front of the eyes of the 7 headed beast with 10 horns ( a place where kingdoms gather-the UN ) The fall of babylon triggers the tribulation- 3 inspired expressions ( lies ) come forth- Then this is the biggie that most will not like-- Satan leads every kingdom ( govt, armies,supporters ) against God at Harmageddon. Each human on earth has been taught patriotism from their youth up, and for this word the majority of mankind will be on the wrong side,the majority of mankind has pledged allegiance to their kingdom. The only ones warned not to do that were the Jehovahs witnesses-They pledged allegiance to the kingdom of God-One cannot do both its hipocrosy. The fall of babylon is like the closing of the ark door in Noahs day. there is still time to get in. but not much
This post, in conjunction with your other post in the thread on Hitler, looks a lot like religious spam.
It is not really on topic for this thread.
If you need to witness, we do permit that, (although we do not permit spamming), but you will need to stay on topic, not hijacking every thread to push your Conspiracy Theories that are only posted to promote your beliefs.
[ /Moderating ]
Are you seriously trying to claim that oil hasn’t been the absolutely dominant factor in the west’s Middle Eastern policy over the last century? Ot that it won’t be in the next century? As an alleged historian who claims to know about the history of the region, you’re not actually aware of the actual documented history of the last century?
Here’s a tiny little sliver of it :
“Persian oil,” as Franklin D Roosevelt said to a British diplomat in 1944, “is yours. We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for Saudi Arabian oil, it’s ours.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/praveenswami/100078511/we-don’t-need-to-worry-about-the-middle-east-if-we-give-up-its-oil/
For most of the last century the west didn’t even try to hide what we were doing. The boundaries of most of the countries there, the creation of various states like Iraq, SDaudi Arabia and kuwait were all due to geostrategic chess playing over control of the region’s oil. If you want to actually make a case that our policy in the region from when oil was discovered up until the present day hasn’t been completely dominated by oil then please set it out in detail so that i have something to reply to.
And, yet, there’s still nobody, nobody at all, providing any credible substantiation for the “idea” that “the US military controls the oil.”
I’m skeptical the U.S. Military controls much of anything, even themselves no less.
Who was making that argument in the first place?
Check the 3rd post in this thread.
I’m sorry that hasn’t been explained to your satisfaction.
The US military enjoys an on/off control of the ‘free flow of oil’ in the middle east region. At least it attempts this within its military means. If you think that isn’t the case, let me know why, thanks.
To my satisfaction? That’s a joke, right? You haven’t even made a pretense at providing substantive credible support for the assertion you made in the third post of this thread.
Is this supposed to be an example of explaining something? If you think it is, someone severely misinformed you when they told you that flapping your gums (or, in this case, tapping your fingers on a keyboard) is sufficient proof of whatever happens to appear. Essentially, all you’re doing here is re-wording your unsubstantiated assertion made way back near the beginning of the thread.
No. You made the assertion that the US military controls the oil. Prove the assertion. Don’t just keep repeating it as though it’s a magical mantra that will become true after a certain number of repetitions.
What the hey. Can you explain this comment?